If that’s the case, I accept it wholeheartedly.
1 Like
But what are the sources of these images? Looks like magazine or smth. Can’t we use them?
Curious, they don’t mention AAM-4 on inner pylons, but on outer pylons. But ASMs can be mounted on inner pylons. So, it’s either we use these (if we can), or we use marks on wings. Not both
2 Likes
These are from the pre-production stage, and show the initial planned armaments. They could be argued maybe for a pre production XF-2A maybe, but they’re not indicitave of its actual productipn loadout.
The reason for the MRMs on outer pylons and ASMs on inner ones is that the initial requirement was 4x ASMs and 4x ARHs, so they were to be used on different pylons. However later the requirement was lowered to 4x ASMs or ARHs, not both at once. Due to the want for more range from drop tanks on inners, and the feaaibility of loading issues on the outer ones.
2 Likes
Anyway, the in-game armaments of F-2 are self-contradictory, it is that obvious.
1 Like
This is ridiculous. We can get XF-2A better than actual F-2A Late…
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
2 Likes
If Gaijin allow it to mount all missiles, there is no big issues, tbh. If we see this plane as 12.7 with 6 AIM-7 and 2 9L, 60 (?) CM is enough. Radar range is also not a problem for distances at it’s BR.1 It can be more comfortable plane than F-2A ADTW
and lets see how they address the countermeasure count on the tech tree one, cuz even 120 standard countermeasures isn’t sometimes enough, with how much you need when you are getting hunted by 3 or more guys
and the top speed and acceleration of the thing is also questionable, it feels sluggish compared to EFT or RFL
120 with 1 per drop is medium. Rafale has slightly less, I think. Su have less. Same as on F-15. Not gripen - you can’t just spam - but enough for battle.
It feels sluggish even compared with F-16 with 6 AIM-120 and 2 2000 lbs bombs. I don’t think it should be so bad. Don’t compare it with EFT and rafale. These planes came too early and simply broken fo current balance
2 Likes
They think pylon markings are decorative lol
Else why not consider it as proof
You cant compare a single engine plane with a twin engine plane especially the f2 vs the eft or rafale its kinda evident
The F-2A was upgraded to support use of the AAM-5 (iris-T) and AIM-9X, and it would not make any sense to not have HMD queueing system along side it.
Even though those missiles aren’t ready to be implemented on fixed wing aircraft, due to balance, the HMD can still be implemented.
Keep in mind that the f-15(j)m has the technology for HMD and F-2A is serving along side it, in 2025 modern day air to air support.
Its top speed and acceleration are accurate. Only way its FM is innacurate is it should have a marginally faster pitch response, and it should not compress basically at all. Ive already sent a bug report which wqs accepted for this.
3 Likes
The F-2A was not origionally planned to have the AAM-5, with plans for it only starting in 2016 and not even having reached the full series yet. Also the AAM-5 is not an IRIS-T, they’re conpletely seperate missiles, and the AAM-5 came first.
Also the aim-9X was never planned
10 Likes
AAM-5 is not IRIS-T, it might look similar but they are not related. AAM-5 also came first.
11 Likes
Why are you guys so mad about 6 AAM-4 if it’s crap? This plane needs AAM-4B and that’s the only thing that will save it in the current meta
1 Like
The HMD can be implemented, however, it isn’t currently and no major retrofit has undergone the F-2 program for it. It makes sense from the perspective of it being a ‘anti-ship carrying navy defense plane’ because, you don’t need an HMD for such defense and it legitimizes the claim that it isn’t inherently for air superiority/aggressive assaults.
That and, with a proper AESA component, you can still slave the missile to a TWS with high-off-boresight for a poor-man’s HMD.
2 Likes
The AAM-4B is really just an AAM-4 with a newer seeker and newer programming for lofting and energy efficient turning. It would be better they start unnerfing the ranges on things like the PL-12, Derby, and AAM-4 instead
3 Likes
Sorry, English is not my native language, so I may have some mistakes in abbreviations. AAM-4B has an active phased array seeker (ESA?). This means that in the current conditions only 5 aircraft can detect them on /radiation warning system?/
It wouldnt do much for the derby since it already has piss poor range (50 km)
Despite that i agree the aam4 should get buffed and there is 2 or 3 bug reports already concerning the issue
If they ended up getting accepted it would increase the thrust alongside making it less maneuverable but would still have good off boresight capabilities like the c-5 is supposed to have and similar effective range